Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7447301" data-attributes="member: 48965">So you are claiming that at a high level and in a general sense D&D 5e Bonds/Flaws/Ideals and Inspiration can't serve the same purpose as Aspects... Yeah we are just going to have to agree to disagree.  While it is up to the group to push those mechanics to the forefront in D&D it is also up to the group in a FATE game to engage with aspects and the FATE economy as opposed to skills, stunts, etc.  So no I've seen no valid push back on this only when it comes to details and whether they can perfectly mimic the FATE mechanics as opposed to the general purpose... which again I'll state I never claimed.  I also fail to see where the push back against the looser rules for idelas/bonds/etc. being an advantage in D&D (for a group of players with more diverse tastes) has been countered or pushed back on...Again I started from and have been talking at a high level... I have claimed that 5e inspiration along with bonds/ideals and flaws can do the same "what" as FATE's aspects and FATE points for players in a D&D game, not that the "How" is the same, that's what I wanted to discuss the differences around.  To claim D&D 5e could do everything the mechanics of FATE do in the same way they do it is a silly argument since they are different systems.  There's no way this could be possible.   I asked for details because I thought it would be interesting to compare the how in each game... remember my list of questions... but instead of taking it as a prompt for discussion and analysis you and @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=55664" target="_blank">ABDULa</a>hzared took it as some type of attack on FATE or indie games or I don't know exactly... and even here you've decided my argument for me byt stating I am saying D&D 5e can do everything FATE can do... that's not what I posted and it's never been my argument that's your takeaway after getting offended and extrapolating from my post.  I guess if you attribute it to me enough times it'll stick. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />Because at this point I wanted to clarify my actual argument so YOU understood my position (which as I stated before you seem to be making a habit of misconstruing).  If my position is unclear how are we going to have an actual discussion about it.  You will always view and approach my posts as if I am trying to one up or prove something I'm not and that will most definitely color the conversation (as it already has since the past couple of posts I've gotten from you have been filled with that snark you felt so keen to lecture me on earlier.).I'm willing to discuss but it has to be in good faith and without viewpoints and arguments being ascribed that were never made and honestly you don't seem like that's the place you want to approach this from right now.  But please if you really would like some discussion and an exchange of viewpoints then let me know and I'd be more than happy to engage you. No it doesn't you've shown that FATE 's mechanics are very focused on a particular experience how does this speak to flexibility.  Can FATE provide a tactical experience if one player in the group wants that?  Do it's mechanics support the type of customization and build choices that a powergamer would enjoy? Can you play casually without fully engaging with FATE's mechanics and the game not suffer?  Can a player focus purely on combat if he is a butt-kicker type?  I think this is a totally separate conversation that hasn't been addressed up till now and I was hoping @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=16586" target="_blank">Campbell</a> would go int more depth about why he saw them as flexible.</blockquote>

Verification